From: Han Solo (emaillists@me.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 12:55:59 ARST
Interesting ... I think a combination of the 2 is in order ... For
anytype of HA you should have both system redundancy but also build
the network with dual uplinks etc etc etc ... My big question was
really how often do folks with say 12.2(18)SXF8 and above with SSO etc
have issue's where they find there Core switches setup with tested ,
properly configugred HA for there core 6500's have partial failures in
which SSO did not fully failover and is hung somewhere in the middle
causing all forms of HA to be lost , I had a situation where the x2
Core 6500's running 12.2(18)SXF13 with dual SUP720-3BXL's , SSO , all
fabric enabled 67XX line cards , redundant mode 6000 WATT PSU's , the
works .. We also quartly do manual failover tests to remove the
"Change Control" factor during a quarter period of time , but one day
we had an issue where the Active SUP on CORE1 failed in such a manner
that the STANDBY sup did not fully take over and litterly they were
flapping back and forth , I was curious if others have ran into this ,
as we are now in the process of having to validate our design which
provides both system level and network level redundancy , so I have
the arguement that even though I have a fault redundant network
meaning physical links , routing protocols , features etc , if the
system fails to failover properly then this is a moot point...
On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:16 AM, Marko Milivojevic wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:41, Joseph Brunner
> <joe@affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
>> I have been in many design meetings with "Braniacs" swearing that
>> single sup
>> per chassis is the way to go (I love when people who don't understand
>> something, in this case SSO, make excuses why you should not use
>> it, etc.)
>
> Heh, I'm actually one of those :-). I'm more fond of redundant
> networks than redundant nodes. For me the network that depends on a
> single node being up is not a good network. Hence, I don't really see
> point of having redundant Sup's all over the place in the core or
> distribution.
>
> You other arguments fully stand for wiring closet. If you have fully
> loaded 6500 connecting end-users, yeah, the last thing you need is a
> failed Sup :-).
>
>> Why do I like SSO so much, well I have pulled a sup in the middle
>> of the day
>> to prove how good it is, and I didn't lose my job... (and nobody
>> found out).
>
> It's always fun demonstration. I usually start it by pulling few 10G
> backbone links to demonstrate FastReroute :-).
>
> --
> Marko
> CCIE #18427 (SP)
> My network blog: http://cisco.markom.info/
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 15:35:22 ARST